Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JWL wrote:When I saw the play live I knew something funky happened. Then during the first replay, I thought Seferian-Jenkins had transferred the ball on purpose from his left hand to his right because the defender on his left was going for the ball. We do see ball carriers from time to time transfer the ball from one hand to the other. It is usually always in the open field, though. That was the one thing several replays had to clear up for me. The difference between me and some of these officials is I would not be throwing a flag or blowing a whistle unless I was certain I saw something that merited a flag or whistle (see my Rams-Jaguars comment). If I was an official in the Patriots-Jets game I would have called the play a touchdown.

When Seferian-Jenkins hit the turf, I believe he had regained possession of the ball and he had crossed the end zone. What it appears I am missing here is he was supposed to get feet or knees in the end zone, that his back and shoulder don't count and he has to touch his hand and toes and do the hokey pokey. No..... I can't anymore. Nurse!

Yup, it's all over-officiated. I don't even really like replay, or at a minimum I could live without it. The only time I feel good about it is if it overturns a horrible error by the officials. But the "tuck rule" and that type of stuff loses the plot. Replay was never meant to be a frame-by-frame thing where we're trying to determine if a foot grazed a blade of grass and so on.

Had there been no replay no one would even be talking about the ASJ TD. A very small percentage of those watching the game might have picked up on the fumble and then thought he got it back anyway. Even fewer would have went to thinking about him being in the air, landing out-of-bounds or with a knee inbounds, and if/when he regained clear possession of the football -- and if replay didn't exist maybe no one's thought process would goto those things?

That's why I was surprised they overturned it. Though going off the rules and replay existing, I thought it was a touchback and the correct call, respectively. But in this and the majority of cases, getting the call correct isn't worth the hassle of replay, and it's yet another example of where getting it correct (which is obviously debatable since not all agree) lends itself to tiresome parsing of the rulebook by most involved. From media to the casual fan -- and even those very aware of the rules likely have to look things up again or need to be reminded. The sport is over-officiated and the rulebook is bloated with the inane. Though this situation was a simpler case of "possession", even that evidently isn't all that simple.

JWL wrote:That all said, the Jets who I heard from (Todd Bowles, Josh McCown, Seferian-Jenkins) all handled it well. It is okay for fans to get mad and complain all week long, but it was good that the Jets didn't. They stayed clear of fines and probably moved on from it already. Seferian-Jenkins does have to not put the Jets in a spot where the officials can make such a call.

I've never had pity for a player who loses the ball and creates a touchback. It is actually not a bad rule. The only aspect I have never been keen on is letting the other team get the ball at the 20. However, I don't know what would be a better option.

ASJ handled it well. Even pointed out he needs to have better ball security. That I've seen Kearse was the most vocal about not liking the call. (side note: here's where I point out that I watched both of them play their high school football in WA, and obviously both went to UW.)

I believe we had a discussion on these forums about the touchback before? I didn't understand then, before, or now why people have a problem with it. I think I had my typical opinion then; don't fumble if you don't want to lose possession.

Reaser wrote: I believe we had a discussion on these forums about the touchback before? I didn't understand then, before, or now why people have a problem with it. I think I had my typical opinion then; don't fumble if you don't want to lose possession.

Yeah, we've definitely had the discussion on here before. Was it the Spencer Ware play from the Jets-Chiefs game of last season that caused somebody to mention it here? That play wasn't anything like the Seferian-Jenkins because it was very plain to see. The officials on the field messed up that call and the TV announcers missed it too. I remember seeing it live and thinking it has to be called a touchback.

Reaser wrote: Yup, it's all over-officiated. I don't even really like replay, or at a minimum I could live without it. The only time I feel good about it is if it overturns a horrible error by the officials. But the "tuck rule" and that type of stuff loses the plot. Replay was never meant to be a frame-by-frame thing where we're trying to determine if a foot grazed a blade of grass and so on. . .

I wish teams could challenge three plays per game and that's it. Use them whenever you want and they have nothing to do with your three timeouts of each half.

I don't like all touchdowns being reviewed. I don't like if you lose a challenge, you lose a time out and anything similar to that. I don't like that coaches can't challenge inside the 2-minute warning. Baseball and basketball are getting like this too with some absurd replay situations.

My personal opinion has always been that if you fumble the ball out of the endzone that possession should not change. Sure you did fumble but the other team didn't recover either, and nor do they deserve 20 free yards (heck they just almost allowed a touchdown)

The entire play should be nullified and the ball back to the original line of scrimmage and the down replayed.

My personal opinion has always been that if you fumble the ball out of the endzone that possession should not change. Sure you did fumble but the other team didn't recover either, and nor do they deserve 20 free yards (heck they just almost allowed a touchdown)

The entire play should be nullified and the ball back to the original line of scrimmage and the down replayed.

Reaser wrote:Yup, it's all over-officiated. I don't even really like replay, or at a minimum I could live without it. The only time I feel good about it is if it overturns a horrible error by the officials. But the "tuck rule" and that type of stuff loses the plot. Replay was never meant to be a frame-by-frame thing where we're trying to determine if a foot grazed a blade of grass and so on.

I agree with all of that. In case you haven't noticed, the same thing is starting to happen in baseball since they've adopted replay -- specifically talking about the concept of infielders "sustaining the tag." If the replay shows that the runner beat the tag, fine, he's safe. If he overslides the base and can't get back, he's out. Both of those concepts go back 100 years and more. But now, if the runner's foot or hand comes off the bag for a tenth of a second while he's getting up, and the ball's still touching him, that's an out. That's a new concept brought on by frame-by-frame replay, and it's overzealous at best.

In the interest of fairness, I should add that I think NFL officiating has improved lately. I just really noticed it this year, but I suspect this also applies to last year and it just didn't register with me until now. But I can't remember the last time I saw one of those terrible roughing-the-passer penalties -- say, where a defensive lineman takes a swing at the ball just as it's released, misses, and then his hand grazes the top of the QB's helmet and he gets a 15-yard penalty. Or those "helmet-to-helmet" calls where the defender hits the QB nice and square in the chest, but then as they his forward momentum causes the top of his helmet to hit the QB's chin strap and it's another 15 yards. Or those "hitting a defenseless receiver" calls where the defensive back just grazes the receiver when he's had plenty of time to cover up.

Some of you guys see many more games than I do, so maybe I've just been lucky. But seriously, the game is much, much improved without that kind of stuff.

Aside from hyper-technical replay rulings, the only call that really bothers me today is the ticky-tack illegal contact on the other side of the field from the play. On a flanker screen, say, where the QB never even looks the other way, just gets the snap and fires the ball out there, they'll get the defensive back on the other sideline --
40 yards from the play! -- for bumping shoulders with a receiver six or seven yards from the line of scrimmage. These always seem to happen on third down, too, and give the offense a completely unwarranted fresh start. When the referees meet for a conference after a play like that, they ought to be able to say, "Well, that was just a little touch foul and it had nothing at all to do with the play, so let's just pick up the flag." But they never do.

JWL wrote:

Reaser wrote: Yup, it's all over-officiated. I don't even really like replay, or at a minimum I could live without it. The only time I feel good about it is if it overturns a horrible error by the officials. But the "tuck rule" and that type of stuff loses the plot. Replay was never meant to be a frame-by-frame thing where we're trying to determine if a foot grazed a blade of grass and so on. . .

I wish teams could challenge three plays per game and that's it. Use them whenever you want and they have nothing to do with your three timeouts of each half.

I don't like all touchdowns being reviewed. I don't like if you lose a challenge, you lose a time out and anything similar to that. I don't like that coaches can't challenge inside the 2-minute warning. Baseball and basketball are getting like this too with some absurd replay situations.

I think there's a basic unfairness built into the replay rules because of touchdown and turnovers being automatically reviewed.

For example, in a play like the one under discussion, if it's ruled a touchdown on the field, there's an automatic review. But, if there's a very close goal-line play that isn't ruled a TD, the only way to get a review is for the the offensive team to challenge. Similarly, if a fumble is ruled on the field, the review is automatic; but if a similar play is not called a fumble, the defensive team team has to challenge to get a review.

I do agree with losing a timeout when you lose a challenge, because I think there has to be a penalty to avoid frivolous challenges. And I don't see a problem with the 2-minute thing; I've never seen a questionable play, on which a coach would probably have challenged, that wasn't given a booth review.

I don't understand running off 10 seconds near the end of the game (as happened last night and also earlier this season)
when the officials stop play to review a call. The offense is being penalized for something that had nothing to do with.
They didn't ask for the replay and would have been able to stop the clock themselves if the play was not ruled a touchdown.
This is something that should be changed since it's blatantly unfair.

John Grasso wrote:I don't understand running off 10 seconds near the end of the game (as happened last night and also earlier this season)
when the officials stop play to review a call. The offense is being penalized for something that had nothing to do with.
They didn't ask for the replay and would have been able to stop the clock themselves if the play was not ruled a touchdown.
This is something that should be changed since it's blatantly unfair.

Of course, the real question is how much time would have run off before they could stop the clock. I believe a team has the option to use a timeout to avert the 10-second runoff, but in both these cases the team was out of timeouts, so their only option was to line up quickly and spike the ball.

Obviously, 10 seconds is arbitrary, but it has to be some period of time and any period that's chosen will be arbitary. Would 7 seconds be fairer? 5 seconds? Who knows?

It may not be totally fair, but I wouldn't call it "blatantly unfair." It seems obvious to me that some time has to be run off, and if too small a number of seconds is chosen, it's unfair to the defense.